The appeal (download) https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf.download.pdf/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf https://www

The appeal (download) https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf.download.pdf/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2... per Wired UK https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba... Google Translate: The appellant is the holder of the international registration IR 1'028'240 [Apple] (fig.) based in the USA, which is claimed for Class 9 goods. The goods include im Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers. The registration involves the following figurative mark: (real apple) The complainant applied for the protection of the disputed sign to be extended in Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property dismissed the request from September 2, 2022 partially withdrawn. As justification, the institute stated that the figurative mark belong to the commons. The disputed sign shows a true-to-life image of an apple and will be understood as an indication of the thematic content of part of the disputed goods. The sign thus lacks the necessary distinctiveness. Against this raised the Complainant Complaint to the Federal Administrative Court. She essentially complains not every thematic reference for the entry is a hindrance. The distinctiveness of A trademark only occurs when there is a sufficiently specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services lost. This reference is absent in the present case.